From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Dec 19 11:15:36 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:15:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LDkoy-0001Cn-5X for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:15:36 -0800 Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.245]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LDkoq-0001Bc-Ls for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:15:36 -0800 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b17so1162327rvf.46 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:15:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=jdeDmJyOANMEkOe3vhbZ0pOGVNJNwQ8SPU7L/ubzmfI=; b=ff5jP4Sl9kLeHRH6MZOm4LipH4b7LH//99GJwX5hj0JhOWgCTpoAuwuySLuzVoqoIo qR2X6I1xTqRFEnuVrD2m40E8YVxsRav361Es7Faa3sHgiyWLw+0WgOKHVpkCDO5A4A+p tfow8Dh6gr+Yai/vILtOsSOnegqldWQAp54ls= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=UXZDmLR8usKr1tr/G+JsLTB2T3AjWxRK2ahL1+w6WqvznT3X06uJrT/gJ2bweQ37/l n4x9gQTzch+duPG90i+EwPXR6m1LcdeILVBXU5vxXFWA/b/vpd0NOa4/E7qYKhRaQ442 IXy+KYm1xbdOYgiDu6uLdigyZeuRgJSlEpsFE= Received: by 10.141.205.10 with SMTP id h10mr1703433rvq.225.1229714127521; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:15:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.194.15 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:15:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560812191115n270695d3j2b072ab530895f9f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:15:27 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: About the negators In-Reply-To: <96f789a60812191055s797c629bnf7e749e17902096d@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <101615.13333.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <925d17560812171429j1e9f7202r4381bbd7e063b19e@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812181220tfb3d6c3k56b01d844f9e4075@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560812181329y69bf5672of028ac125047536d@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812190833k22700061i143be7bf997749ce@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560812191005nd881082tddfabf6d283f6494@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a60812191055s797c629bnf7e749e17902096d@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 15123 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Michael Turniansky wrote: > > And there is for "na", too. Like the first > transform of transforming it (if it's in a selbri) to "naku" at the start of > a prenex. Except when it isn't. When {na} is in a selbri, it can't always be moved to the start of a prenex. That's the problem with the special na-rule, it's complicated and ill defined. > Essentially, one extra step. But, again, yes, it's very messy > with bridi tails. Is "su'oda na broda gi'e brode" the same as "naku su'oda > broda gi'e brode"? (I think yes. Without the special na-rule it would be obvious that it is not. With the na-rule in place, who knows? CLL doesn't mention that case. Who do we ask? > Otherwise you should say "su'oda broda > nagi'e brode") Do we know for sure how na works there? Without the special na-rule, it would be obvious. With the na-rule in place, who knows? For me it is obvious that the Right Thing is su'o da (na broda) gi'e (brode) = su'o da (broda) na gi'e (brode) = su'o da ga (na broda) gi'e (brode) = su'o da ga nai (broda) gi'e (brode) But with the special na-rule in place, who knows for sure? > Heck, is "su'oda naku broda gi'e brode" the same as "su'oda > ge naku broda gi brode" or "su'oda nage broda gi brode"? It is "su'o da naku ge broda gi broda". Nobody should have any doubt about that one. {naku} is a shared term for broda and brode. As for "su'oda nage broda gi brode", with the special na-rule in place, who knows? > By the same > reasoning as my last parenthetical, I think it's the former. But it > certainly a potential source of confusion. The special na-rule is the source of confusion. That's my point. mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.